Electronic conversations may take different forms including synchronous (e.g., instant messaging (IM), chat) and asynchronous (e.g., electronic mail (email)) forms. IM is a synchronous online collaboration technology that allows parties to communicate electronically with others singly and/or in groups. IM and other electronic messaging systems have recently come under security and auditing regulation scrutiny (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley), which has found them wanting.
Consider Prior Art FIG. 1, which illustrates how users may interact with conventional systems. A user 100 and a user 110 may communicate using different applications (e.g., email, chat). Each user may have its own archive for each application. For example, user 100 may store emails in email archive 120 and may store chat messages in chat archive 140. Similarly, user 110 may store emails in email archive 130 and may store chat messages in chat archive 150. Whether messages are even stored may depend on a user choice. Conventionally, a user 180 would confront a digital divide 199 through which they could not penetrate to either view, share, or contribute to any conversations in which user 100 and user 110 engaged using the different applications.
Some systems have addressed integrating IM with email to facilitate mixing and matching between appropriate applications and/or modalities based on online availability. For example, both Yahoo and Google have integrated email and IM so that when a user starts an email communication, if the intended recipient(s) is online, the user is given the option of sending an IM instead of an email and vice versa. Some of these systems have even produced integrated archiving systems in an attempt to respond to security and auditing issues. However, the archive files are typically private text files organized by time and party.
Consider Prior Art FIG. 2, which illustrates how users may interact with a conventional integrated system. A user 200 and a user 210 may interact with an integrated system 220. Each user may have their own archive into which they may choose to store data. For example, user 200 may store messages from the integrated system 220 in archive 230 while user 210 may store messages from the integrated system 220 in archive 240. A user may interact with a discussion forum application 250 that has its own archive 260. However, user 280 remains on the wrong side of the digital divide 299, unable to view, share, or participate in conversations in which user 200 and user 210 participated using the integrated application 220. User 280 may have access to the discussion forum application 250 and through application 250 to its archive 260.
Regardless of their form, electronic conversations are started for some reason. Similarly, other actions that occur during the lifecycle of a conversation (e.g., pausing, resuming, ending) occur for a reason. The reason(s) why a conversation started, progressed as it did, and concluded may have some historical, institutional, and/or personal importance. Similarly, the exchange of ideas that occurred during the conversation may also have some importance. This importance may extend beyond just the conversation participants. However, conventional systems, to the extent that they have provided any archiving of conversations at all, have done so in an inefficient and/or limited temporal only approach. This is particularly the case for short term synchronous text conversation modalities (e.g., IM, chat). IM archives have typically been simple text files that are stored on a per user basis and that are difficult, if possible at all, to share, organize, arrange, and/or search. Even in integrated systems, IM/email archives have typically been personal and organized by party and/or date.
The limitations associated with conventional systems may be associated with how these types of conversations have historically been initiated, prosecuted, and concluded. In a typical flow, one online user noticed that another person with whom they would like to communicate was also online. A conversation was initiated, typically short text messages were exchanged in a synchronous manner, and eventually the conversation concluded. To the extent that any archiving occurred, each party may have chosen to dump text messages into a private text file. This text file was typically neither searchable nor shareable.
With the advent of integrated IM/email systems, an IM user may have wanted to communicate with another IM user, but that user may have been offline. Thus, the integrated system may have accepted an IM message from the original user but may have sent it as an email. Once again, archiving may have been a personal choice to dump to a personal repository that was typically not searchable and not shareable. In these integrated systems, relationships between IM messages and related emails may be maintained.
Conventional systems may have some metadata available for their private archives. For example, the date a conversation occurred, the party who stored the file, and the time the conversation started/ended may be available. This limited metadata supports only limited searching, which compromises the ability to pause and resume conversations, particularly across different modalities. Consider the following typical scenario, which illustrates limitations associated with conventional systems.
Two employees have a chat (e.g., IM) session on how to install a product. One employee is an expert from whom the other employee is seeking help. The expert provides advice and the non-expert starts to follow the advice. Later, when the non-expert has gone as far as possible with the available information, the non-expert may try to acquire more information form the expert. However, the expert may not be online, and thus may be unavailable to immediately resume the conversation. Thus, the non-expert may send an email. The expert eventually receives the email. However, the email does not include the chat session conversation, so the expert may experience re-initiation costs like finding an archive of the chat session (if it even exists) and refreshing recollection of the subject matter and progress to date. The expert will then decide how to reply (e.g., email, chat). At some point after this second interaction, the non-expert may yet again seek further information, this time while the expert is available online. The new chat may also be out of context for the expert since other issues are likely to have arisen in the interim. Thus, either the non-expert or the expert will need to acquire archived information (if any) from two separate modalities (chat, email), organize it, and present it in a coherent manner to facilitate this third communication in the conversation. The non-expert may finally resolve their issue and move on. The non-expert may identify the expert to another non-expert who is experiencing the same issue. This second non-expert may then initiate a conversation with the expert. Conventionally there is no simple, effective way for the expert to capture the knowledge of the previous mixed modality conversation and to provide the information to the second (and subsequent) non-expert. While the same topic may be discussed, different modalities employed in a multi-step conversation that was paused and resumed may frustrate recreating the topic and its resolution.
The situation may be exacerbated further if the expert sought out additional information from a colleague and provided that information to the non-expert as part of the first conversation. Since the additional information, if stored at all, would conventionally be stored as part of a separate conversation, it may be very difficult, if possible at all, to recreate that portion of the multi-party conversation.